Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

AlekSmart · 16-09-2018 12:58PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's not uncommon for business transferring from one provider to another to go behind the planned timelines. It's usually a consideration during transition phases. I'd expect this is already factored in.

The current BAC-NTA Contracts contain detailed arrangements for Transition Management,which amongst other elements deal with Force Majure events,Step-In and Step-Out clauses.

Assuming (something we should NOT be required to do at this stage) that the GAI-NTA Contract is identical in this regard,then the non performance issue is well sorted.

The dates for route transferences are already in place.
On those dates,the routes concerned no longer form part of the existing BAC PSO Contract,and,if unfulfilled by GAI, revert to the direct responsibility of the NTA itself.

Anything the NTA then decides to do,in relation to the procurement of these services is then subject to a seperate contract,between the NTA and whomever is selected to Step-In.

What appears to be causing confusion,is the nature of the Employment Contracts relevant to individual companies.

In a Step-In situation this is a moot point,as the Authority now has a whole heap of PSO services requiring an operator,with the former operator (BAC) sitting outside the door,whistling and smiling serenely,as it decides just how much to bill the Authority for the smooth continuance of the effected routes.

AlekSmart · 16-09-2018 01:10PM

Stevek101 wrote: »

The whole operation has ran relativity smoothly. I remember it was claimed they would never be able to get the staff but in fact the job offers were over subscribed.

That's not to say there hasn't been issues. Such as the timetable being issued late, the whole livery disaster and RTPI. I would point out those are issues on the NTA's side. It'd be safe to assume these all relate to staffing issues there.

To the end user the service is running well the only thing that is missing is RTPI which will be rectified shortly. GoAhead have done everything to ensure this service is running and I have no doubt there will be no issues on their side over the coming weeks.

The staff in DB have voted on the suggested options post route transfer. So the only issue we are likely to see is on DB's side. Bear in mind a pay claim is also expected to be issued shortly. I'd say its fairly likely we will see strike action and a long delay in expected fleet expansion with GoAhead running as normal. It won't look good when the direct award comes up for discussion in 2019 especially if the programme for government is extended by two years.

It's worth pointing out only BAC staff directly effected by the contracts were involved in the ballot.
This equates to c.240 out of a total driver number of c.2,500.
It is likely that the issue will now go to the Labour Court for a recommendation,which could potentially result in a judgement with broader recommendations,to be put to a full ballot,which might not provide quite the result you suggest.

The Direct Award is up for discussion right now,as the Statutory Review must be carried out 12 months in advance of the ending of the relevant PSO contract.

dfx- · 16-09-2018 01:24PM

devnull wrote: »

Aren't we told that the whole idea of public companies and one of the things that makes the likes of Dublin Bus better than private companies, is the fact that they will put the public first and foremost, before any of their own interests? I see a lot of talk about staff but little about customers here?

Personally I would think it wouldn't help Dublin Bus if staff did not comply, it would just make DB and their staff seem un-cooperative and if the NTA feel that the status quo are not cooperating and this has an effect on the public, then it just makes it even more likely that they'll put more routes out to tender.

I understand why some people feel the way they do and have the opinion that they do, but DB getting into the NTA's bad books is not going to help them long term. Normally the reason people contract things out, is because they cannot get what they are looking for, or the level of co-operation needed with their existing method.

Should the independent tendering process (heh) be compromised by being in NTA bad books?

It's that sort of threat that needs the results of the tenders to be published.

devnull · 16-09-2018 01:33PM

dfx- wrote: »

It's that sort of threat that needs the results of the tenders to be published.

The number of people who are constantly calling for the results to be published, have not uttered a word about Bus Eireann winning the Waterford contract, despite putting in a bid which has been the only winner of any NTA tender officially confirmed as being more expensive than other parties.

The reason that some people want the results to published is because of a case of sour grapes due to the fact that the horse they backed, unfortunately lost in this particular instance. They know that the results are unlikely to be published so this allows them to keep playing the hard luck story and conspiracy theory about why Dublin Bus lost, in the absence of any factual, speculation free information to back up their view of something not being quite right.

Otherwise they would be focusing on all tenders in general, rather than having concerns and shouting loudly where the horse they backed lost and remaining completely silent where the horse the backed won under the very same system that they seem to believe is flawed. You cannot suggest that the system was somehow not fair, then say that when your own side wins it is and when someone else wins it isn't. Sounds like bitterness.

AlekSmart · 16-09-2018 02:39PM

devnull wrote: »

The number of people who are constantly calling for the results to be published, have not uttered a word about Bus Eireann winning the Waterford contract, despite putting in a bid which has been the only winner of any NTA tender officially confirmed as being more expensive than other parties.

The reason that some people want the results to published is because of a case of sour grapes due to the fact that the horse they backed, unfortunately lost in this particular instance. They know that the results are unlikely to be published so this allows them to keep playing the hard luck story and conspiracy theory about why Dublin Bus lost, in the absence of any factual, speculation free information to back up their view of something not being quite right.

Otherwise they would be focusing on all tenders in general, rather than having concerns and shouting loudly where the horse they backed lost and remaining completely silent where the horse the backed won under the very same system that they seem to believe is flawed. You cannot suggest that the system was somehow not fair, then say that when your own side wins it is and when someone else wins it isn't. Sounds like bitterness.

Thats quite a slew of assumptions there for sure.

I am constantly calling for the NTA-GAI Contract to be placed in the Public Domain,because such action is part & parcel of the National Transport AUTHORITY'S very reason to exist in the first place.

Bus Eireann's Waterford success has nothing to do with my reasoning,and it should be placed on the record ASAP too.

We know (or we are forced to assume) that BAC lost the 10% on their poorer performance on Service Quality.

The Tender involved a 65/35 percentage weighting between the two elements of Cost and Service Quality.

(Interestingly the Singapore tendering model reversed that weighting with 65% to QoS and 35%^ to Cost)

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/nta-announces-go-ahead-preferred-bidder-bus-routes-dublin/

Go-Ahead were selected as preferred bidder under a competitive public procurement process. Under this process the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (the “MEAT” tender) is identified through detailed assessment which includes a weighted score for price and quality. The weighting ratio between quality considerations and price considerations was 35:65. This was considered by the NTA as the best fit for this competition.

In the absence of ANY substantive information from the National Authority on how it's decisions were arrived at,we,not unsurprisingly,resort to speculation and often misinformed gossip.

Why exactly do you suggest the results are "unlikely to be published" ?

This is not a session of the Illuminati or the Grand Lodge of the Freemasons we are talking about here (I hope),but a State Authority entering into a freely negotiated contract,which,unless there are individual elements which are contrary to the Public Interest,should be freely available to that same Public as soon as it has been signed by both partioes and the relevant stand-off periods have expired.

As it happens,I believe the Tendering process to have been fully above board,and compliant with all relevant regulations,which makes it all the more important that the Authorty is seen to have similar confidence in its BMO Contracting system.

You cannot,without falling foul of your own "Sour Grapes" allegation,seriously suggest that Public Bus Service Operation Contracts,either directly or tendered should be kept secret and not be subject to inspection by the very public they are entered into on behalf of ?

Before anybody leaps through the curtain with a shout of FoI,FoI application...etc, I would strongly suggest NOT proceeding down this particular road at the moment,as it then potentially allows the NTA precedent to to make ALL of it's contractual dealings,subject to FoI applications,when in fact they should be laid out FULLY for their Public to Inspect and digest.

It's not as if the mass of Irish Public Opinion will make a rush for the Contract Documents,but it does allow for full,and INFORMED,discussion amongst genuinely interested parties,thus heads-off the more lurid speculation currently now the norm.

PS: It is heartening to note that some enterprising Journalist has alreday submitted FoI requests on 3rd October and 10th November 2017,and been refused Information regarding the GAI-NTA Contract Process...

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/FOI_Disclosure_Log_2017.pdf

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/2017%20Requests/2017-0070

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/2017%20Requests/2017-0082

dfx- · 17-09-2018 01:17PM

devnull wrote: »

The number of people who are constantly calling for the results to be published, have not uttered a word about Bus Eireann winning the Waterford contract, despite putting in a bid which has been the only winner of any NTA tender officially confirmed as being more expensive than other parties.

The reason that some people want the results to published is because of a case of sour grapes due to the fact that the horse they backed, unfortunately lost in this particular instance. They know that the results are unlikely to be published so this allows them to keep playing the hard luck story and conspiracy theory about why Dublin Bus lost, in the absence of any factual, speculation free information to back up their view of something not being quite right.

Otherwise they would be focusing on all tenders in general, rather than having concerns and shouting loudly where the horse they backed lost and remaining completely silent where the horse the backed won under the very same system that they seem to believe is flawed. You cannot suggest that the system was somehow not fair, then say that when your own side wins it is and when someone else wins it isn't. Sounds like bitterness.

Why is the go-to response bitterness and defensive assumptions about which horse was backed?

It's nothing to do with the Bus Eireann tender, but yes that should also be publicly available. And the NTA should be made to stand over their decision and judgement, on cost or anything else.

This tender should be publicly available to see what the NTA scored highly, what GA committed to on their readiness to take over. What they committed to on every element, what they promised and how the NTA scored it should be available now and should be available since the day of the award. There should be clear, measurable, independent, transparent and publicly available claims and targets.

It should not feature underlying threats like 'behave and work with us or beware of the next tender' like your previous post. Each tender should be judged on its own merits, not whether you're in the bad books.

There is absolutely no reason for this to not be available.

AlekSmart · 17-09-2018 01:43PM

dfx- wrote: »

Why is the go-to response bitterness and defensive assumptions about which horse was backed?

It's nothing to do with the Bus Eireann tender, but yes that should also be publicly available. And the NTA should be made to stand over their decision and judgement, on cost or anything else.

This tender should be publicly available to see what the NTA scored highly, what GA committed to on their readiness to take over. What they committed to on every element, what they promised and how the NTA scored it should be available now and should be available since the day of the award. There should be clear, measurable, independent, transparent and publicly available claims and targets.

It should not feature underlying threats like 'behave and work with us or beware of the next tender' like your previous post. Each tender should be judged on its own merits, not whether you're in the bad books.

There is absolutely no reason for this to not be available.

What possible reason can the National Transport Authority have to act as if the new PSO Contract is Top Secret ?

Can they not take some leads from how other juristictions manage their tendering regimes...

What is being tendered for....

https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=721d3fea-797d-4e70-b83c-dce9870ab1c3

The Tender bids.......

https://www.lta.gov.sg/data/apps/news/press/2015/20151123_BidPriceLoyangBusPkg.pdf

This has been the case since the commencement of the Singaporean Tendering model.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/first-bus-tender-draws-11-bidders

https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=6bc7cedf-2390-4c4f-904c-de12115b1354

Damn foreigners befuddling their Citizens with all this dreadfully confidential INFORMATION. :eek:

This is a basic element of transparency in these matters,and one which a State AUTHORITY should not need to be prodded,cajoled or FoI'd about...It should be in their own Constitution.

GM228 · 17-09-2018 04:06PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

I am constantly calling for the NTA-GAI Contract to be placed in the Public Domain,because such action is part & parcel of the National Transport AUTHORITY'S very reason to exist in the first place.

I very much doubt that releasing potentially sensitive information is part and parcel of the NTAs existence.

AlekSmart wrote: »

In the absence of ANY substantive information from the National Authority on how it's decisions were arrived at,we,not unsurprisingly,resort to speculation and often misinformed gossip.

The problem is even if any substantive information is made available you will still have people speculate and make misinformed opinions on what is presented, you will then have the Internet self appointed experts saying they should have actually done this, that and the other.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Why exactly do you suggest the results are "unlikely to be published" ?

Commercial sensitivity it something long established and recognised for good reason, the chances of the NTA breaking what is industry best practice (and legally protected not least by the new know-how and business information Directive) is probably around the zero mark.

There are also likely NDA agreements in place and you can't contract out of protecting commercial interests either.

AlekSmart wrote: »

This is not a session of the Illuminati or the Grand Lodge of the Freemasons we are talking about here (I hope),but a State Authority entering into a freely negotiated contract,which,unless there are individual elements which are contrary to the Public Interest,should be freely available to that same Public as soon as it has been signed by both partioes and the relevant stand-off periods have expired.

Such contracts are not necessarily freely negotiated, a bid is made and has a price and other aspects offered to run the service, that is either accepted or rejected. Other companies knowing what exactly was offered etc undermines the whole competitive aspect of tendering, that's the sort of information inside traders just love to get their hands on.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Before anybody leaps through the curtain with a shout of FoI,FoI application...etc, I would strongly suggest NOT proceeding down this particular road at the moment,as it then potentially allows the NTA precedent to to make ALL of it's contractual dealings,subject to FoI applications,when in fact they should be laid out FULLY for their Public to Inspect and digest.

It's not as if the mass of Irish Public Opinion will make a rush for the Contract Documents,but it does allow for full,and INFORMED,discussion amongst genuinely interested parties,thus heads-off the more lurid speculation currently now the norm.

PS: It is heartening to note that some enterprising Journalist has alreday submitted FoI requests on 3rd October and 10th November 2017,and been refused Information regarding the GAI-NTA Contract Process...

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/FOI_Disclosure_Log_2017.pdf

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/2017%20Requests/2017-0070

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/2017%20Requests/2017-0082

It's not a simple case of the request being refused.

When information is considered commercially sensitive the release of such information by a FOI request is forbidden by law.

dfx- wrote: »

There is absolutely no reason for this to not be available.

From a commercial point of view anyone who deals in commercial law or acts to protect commercial interests will tell you there is absolutely no reason why it should be available and that stance they hold would be backed by decades of case law to protect their interests.

Ask yourself why the two most prominent legal avenues for release of information (DP and FOI) have exclusions for commercially sensitive information. Yes there are balancing tests, but they are difficult to achieve, and the argument that a public service contract should be for the public to view won't cut.

AlekSmart wrote: »

What possible reason can the National Transport Authority have to act as if the new PSO Contract is Top Secret ?

A recurring theme when discussing the openness of such contracts is the NTA should do this, the NTA are being secret, the NTA should release etc. You need to remember that the NTA is only one half of the party, release could only be made if GA agreed to, even if the NTA wanted to force the issue. It is an unfair and unjust assumption that the NTA are being the secretive ones.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Can they not take some leads from how other juristictions manage their tendering regimes...

You regularly mention Singapore, but you need to remember that they are an exception to the rule, you will do well to find a handful more examples of tendered contracts being made publicly available.

They also stem from a different Jurisprudence model which is not heavily influenced by EU law and protections, for example we now have the know-how and business information Directive which aims to protect commercially sensitive information/trade secrets at EU level. There are also a number of European Court of Justice cases confirming the importance of commercially sensitive information in contracts being kept confidential to protect business interests, the new Directive which was recently transposed into Irish law makes disclosure of such contracts in Europe less likely than ever.

AlekSmart wrote: »

This is a basic element of transparency in these matters,and one which a State AUTHORITY should not need to be prodded,cajoled or FoI'd about...It should be in their own Constitution.

Perhaps we should ask the various other state agencies/authorities to release the details of their various contacts, after all nearly all contracts held by the various agencies are public related.

The reality is there is no basic element of transparency in these matters for any public contract in nearly every corner of the globe.

WomanSkirtFan8 · 17-09-2018 10:16PM

Those new bus stops are already in bray. Between The boghall road and Bray Main Street. Saw them yesterday around ten to four. IMG_20180916_155155a.jpg

AlekSmart · 17-09-2018 10:19PM

GM228 wrote: »

I very much doubt that releasing potentially sensitive information is part and parcel of the NTAs existence.

The problem is even if any substantive information is made available you will still have people speculate and make misinformed opinions on what is presented, you will then have the Internet self appointed experts saying they should have actually done this, that and the other.

Commercial sensitivity it something long established and recognised for good reason, the chances of the NTA breaking what is industry best practice (and legally protected not least by the new know-how and business information Directive) is probably around the zero mark.

There are also likely NDA agreements in place and you can't contract out of protecting commercial interests either.

Such contracts are not necessarily freely negotiated, a bid is made and has a price and other aspects offered to run the service, that is either accepted or rejected. Other companies knowing what exactly was offered etc undermines the whole competitive aspect of tendering, that's the sort of information inside traders just love to get their hands on.

It's not a simple case of the request being refused.

When information is considered commercially sensitive the release of such information by a FOI request is forbidden by law.

From a commercial point of view anyone who deals in commercial law or acts to protect commercial interests will tell you there is absolutely no reason why it should be available and that stance they hold would be backed by decades of case law to protect their interests.

Ask yourself why the two most prominent legal avenues for release of information (DP and FOI) have exclusions for commercially sensitive information. Yes there are balancing tests, but they are difficult to achieve, and the argument that a public service contract should be for the public to view won't cut.

A recurring theme when discussing the openness of such contracts is the NTA should do this, the NTA are being secret, the NTA should release etc. You need to remember that the NTA is only one half of the party, release could only be made if GA agreed to, even if the NTA wanted to force the issue. It is an unfair and unjust assumption that the NTA are being the secretive ones.

You regularly mention Singapore, but you need to remember that they are an exception to the rule, you will do well to find a handful more examples of tendered contracts being made publicly available.

They also stem from a different Jurisprudence model which is not heavily influenced by EU law and protections, for example we now have the know-how and business information Directive which aims to protect commercially sensitive information/trade secrets at EU level. There are also a number of European Court of Justice cases confirming the importance of commercially sensitive information in contracts being kept confidential to protect business interests, the new Directive which was recently transposed into Irish law makes disclosure of such contracts in Europe less likely than ever.

Perhaps we should ask the various other state agencies/authorities to release the details of their various contacts, after all nearly all contracts held by the various agencies are public related.

The reality is there is no basic element of transparency in these matters for any public contract in nearly every corner of the globe.

Still no sound reasoning for the terms of the Go-Ahead-NTA Contract to be witheld.

The Singaporean Land Transit Authority is not some Stalinist apparatchik organization,and the Go-Ahead group,which was successful in the process is the SAME group which is operating in Dublin,so much so that they refer themselves to the process in their annual report.

The Only figure available in the Public Domain is a total cost over 5 years of €172,000,000,but then again,maybe that slipped out when nobody was looking ? :eek:

Qrt · 17-09-2018 10:46PM

WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »

Those new bus stops are already in bray. Between The boghall road and Bray Main Street. Saw them yesterday around ten to four. IMG_20180916_155155a.jpg

I don't mean to be pedantic but they're not really the new bus stops. I wonder when they'll install the proper new ones, probably when the old ones have either collapsed from rust or crashes.

WomanSkirtFan8 · 17-09-2018 11:33PM

Qrt wrote: »

I don't mean to be pedantic but they're not really the new bus stops. I wonder when they'll install the proper new ones, probably when the old ones have either collapsed from rust or crashes.

Pretty soon by the looks of things I would imagine.:)

bk · 18-09-2018 10:01AM

Qrt wrote: »

I don't mean to be pedantic but they're not really the new bus stops. I wonder when they'll install the proper new ones, probably when the old ones have either collapsed from rust or crashes.

They have replaced pretty much * all the bus stops down in Cork with the shiny new ones. They look great, I assume the above is temporary and the new ones will come to Dublin soon too, I think there is a tender out for it.

* I say pretty much, because every one I saw is now new, but I'm sure someone can point out an exception somewhere that was missed. But the vast majority have certainly been replaced.

GM228 · 18-09-2018 11:57AM

AlekSmart wrote: »

Still no sound reasoning for the terms of the Go-Ahead-NTA Contract to be witheld.

The long established principles of commercial sensitivity and the various recognised legal protections they are afforded seems like pretty sound reasoning to me.

AlekSmart wrote: »

The Singaporean Land Transit Authority is not some Stalinist apparatchik organization,and the Go-Ahead group,which was successful in the process is the SAME group which is operating in Dublin,so much so that they refer themselves to the process in their annual report.

What's your point, as I stated they are different jurisdictions with different rules, they are an exception to what is pretty much standard the world over, my understanding is that the law in Singapore in relation to public contracts only allows for commercial sensitivity and non disclosure in relation to defence and security contracts.

You also need to remember that protections and restrictions on the publication of contract awards where commercial sensitivity is an issue is enshrined in EU law, perhaps we shouod lobby Brussels on the issue, I doubt much will change though considering it's a concept which is well recognised and accepted by institutions, governments, courts and businesses alike.

dublinman1990 · 18-09-2018 12:47PM

I had a look at the GAI facebook page earlier. Some people on there were asking questions about what the routes in Dun Laoghaire will be like from the 7th of October. The replies coming back said that there will no changes expected on them when they switch to GAI. The routes there will stay the same as before while they are currently with Dublin Bus. I know the 184 & 185 will changeover on the same day but I couldn't find any information on what they are going to be like from the 7th of October.

punisher5112 · 18-09-2018 01:18PM

One thing I hope they do is crack down on fare evasion and missuse of free travel passes as those routes are rampant.

antoinolachtnai · 18-09-2018 01:27PM

London publishes the rates per mile that they pay transport operators for route groups and have done for years. They are in the same EU as us. If it can be done there, it can be done here.

AlekSmart · 18-09-2018 01:52PM

GM228 wrote: »

The long established principles of commercial sensitivity and the various recognised legal protections they are afforded seems like pretty sound reasoning to me.

What's your point, as I stated they are different jurisdictions with different rules, they are an exception to what is pretty much standard the world over, my understanding is that the law in Singapore in relation to public contracts only allows for commercial sensitivity and non disclosure in relation to defence and security contracts.

You also need to remember that protections and restrictions on the publication of contract awards where commercial sensitivity is an issue is enshrined in EU law, perhaps we shouod lobby Brussels on the issue, I doubt much will change though considering it's a concept which is well recognised and accepted by institutions, governments, courts and businesses alike.

My point is.....ALL NTA Public Service Obligation Contracts should be on the Public Record,once accepted and signed by the parties concerned.

To suggest that Contract details,for Public Bus Service provision should be kept concealed from Public View,is to me,not alone unsustainable,but flies in the face of the very concept of Public Accountability so often referred to in Authoritorial circles of late.

I have high regard for the commercial acumen of the Go Ahead group,and I have little doubt that their Strategies are well robust enough,having been laid bare to the Singaporeans,to cope with the Great Irish unwashed thumbing through the agreed documentation.

18-09-2018 02:25PM

dashcamdanny wrote: »

This has me and many others very very worried . Im bloody terrified to be honest.

TBH, I don't give a toss. Just like I don't care if the local barber has to drop his costs due to competition.

Funny, how I don't see the posters here complain about competition in other sectors of the economy.

Next time you are shopping for car insurance, will the employee wages be a factor in which company you choose? I doubt it which makes your argument very hallow indeed.

end of the road · 18-09-2018 03:01PM

salonfire wrote: »

TBH, I don't give a toss. Just like I don't care if the local barber has to drop his costs due to competition.

the difference is the local barber would actually have competition which will benefit the user, rather then competition in the loose sense of the word that in real terms won't make any difference to the user.

Funny, how I don't see the posters here complain about competition in other sectors of the economy.[/QUOTE]

because in those sectors, there is actual competition and actual benefits come from it.

salonfire wrote: »

Next time you are shopping for car insurance, will the employee wages be a factor in which company you choose? I doubt it which makes your argument very hallow indeed.

i'm not seeing how that statement is relevant to anything. his argument isn't hallow either.

bk · 18-09-2018 03:18PM

end of the road wrote: »

the difference is the local barber would actually have competition which will benefit the user, rather then competition in the loose sense of the word that in real terms won't make any difference to the user.

What!! Of course there are benefits in real terms.

If it reduces the cost of running a particular route, then that frees up subsidy money to be used in other places or to expand services.

Also it stops companies from getting lazy and abusing their monopoly. If you have a monopoly and the NTA request changes to services (24/7 running, dual door use, etc.) and the company says no, then there isn't much they can do.

But if there are multiple companies it takes the power and control out of the hands of the individual company and places it back in the hands of the customer. The customer being the NTA directly in this case, the the public indirectly.

Monopolies are bad, whether public or private. Telecom Eireann was a bad monopoly, as was Eircom.

18-09-2018 03:38PM

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not seeing how that statement is relevant to anything. his argument isn't hallow either.

Exactly, it is not relevant. When consumers look to purchase a good or service, the salaries of the employees is not a concern. Nor is the nationality of the company or its shareholders a concern.

Foreign car makers are also taking money out of Ireland and adding to the profits of Korean or German companies.

But I don't see the Dublin Bus folks over in the Motors forum bemoaning when someone drops €40,000 on a new BMW car.

The arguments are very, very hallow. The concern is not the profiteering multi national nor the traveling public; it's because their power to bring Dublin to a stand-stead is being chipped away.

end of the road · 18-09-2018 04:15PM

salonfire wrote: »

Exactly, it is not relevant. When consumers look to purchase a good or service, the salaries of the employees is not a concern. Nor is the nationality of the company or its shareholders a concern.

Foreign car makers are also taking money out of Ireland and adding to the profits of Korean or German companies.

But I don't see the Dublin Bus folks over in the Motors forum bemoaning when someone drops €40,000 on a new BMW car.

The arguments are very, very hallow. The concern is not the profiteering multi national nor the traveling public; it's because their power to bring Dublin to a stand-stead is being chipped away.

the arguments are not hallow but valid. most foreign companies aren't taking public money out of the country. bmw isn't getting public funding. go ahead on the other hand is getting public funding. that is why people have an issue.
this so-called ability to bring dublin to a stand still isn't being chipped away because multiple companies do not guarantee against a full bus strike. very easy to for example, put in a pay claim at the same time across a few companies.

bk · 18-09-2018 04:34PM

end of the road wrote: »

the arguments are not hallow but valid. most foreign companies aren't taking public money out of the country. bmw isn't getting public funding. go ahead on the other hand is getting public funding. that is why people have an issue.

What people?

Very few people care less about who is driving their bus. The Luas is operated by a foreign company, yet people love the Luas and it is the most popular form of public transport in Ireland.

Clearly the general public couldn't care less.

Lots of foreign companies benefit from public funds. Most of our motorway network was built by foreign companies with public funds. I note that Irish Rails booking systems was built by a german company. Every single Irish Rail train and carriage is built by various foreign companies. DB buses are built by a foreign company. all funded by public funds.

What is the problem with any of the above?

18-09-2018 04:34PM

end of the road wrote: »

the arguments are not hallow but valid. most foreign companies aren't taking public money out of the country. bmw isn't getting public funding. go ahead on the other hand is getting public funding. that is why people have an issue.
this so-called ability to bring dublin to a stand still isn't being chipped away because multiple companies do not guarantee against a full bus strike. very easy to for example, put in a pay claim at the same time across a few companies.

Funny that, when Dunnes Stores went on strike, I was able to get food in Tesco.

When Lyolds Pharmacies were on strike recently, I was able to go to an alternate.

Seems to me strikes across multiple companies are not that common in Ireland.

Stephen15 · 18-09-2018 04:37PM

bk wrote: »

They have replaced pretty much * all the bus stops down in Cork with the shiny new ones. They look great, I assume the above is temporary and the new ones will come to Dublin soon too, I think there is a tender out for it.

* I say pretty much, because every one I saw is now new, but I'm sure someone can point out an exception somewhere that was missed. But the vast majority have certainly been replaced.

They have installed a few of the new ones along the 175 route. I hope they change the design not to mention the operator as it should be invisible to the user whether the service is operated by Go-Ahead or Dublin Bus at least only have the operators name in small print.

LuckyLloyd · 18-09-2018 06:58PM

salonfire wrote: »

TBH, I don't give a toss. Just like I don't care if the local barber has to drop his costs due to competition.

Funny, how I don't see the posters here complain about competition in other sectors of the economy.

Next time you are shopping for car insurance, will the employee wages be a factor in which company you choose? I doubt it which makes your argument very hallow indeed.

When all you can compete on is wages a race to the bottom is not in the interest of employees in all sectors / industries / roles.

Dub13 · 18-09-2018 07:05PM

salonfire wrote: »

Funny that, when Dunnes Stores went on strike, I was able to get food in Tesco.

When Lyolds Pharmacies were on strike recently, I was able to go to an alternate.

Seems to me strikes across multiple companies are not that common in Ireland.

If you have a kid going to school on a bus driven by a lad just off a night shift driving a taxi to make ends meet you will start to care soon enough.

Qrt · 18-09-2018 11:58PM

Stephen15 wrote: »

They have installed a few of the new ones along the 175 route. I hope they change the design not to mention the operator as it should be invisible to the user whether the service is operated by Go-Ahead or Dublin Bus at least only have the operators name in small print.

exactly, this really annoyed me. it just adds to confusion too, I overheard a polish woman on the bus stop asking if there was a taxsaver bus/luas she could get that included the 175. she'd no idea it was valid!

punisher5112 · 19-09-2018 06:35AM

The new route doesn't accept db staff travel.

So it has started already where staff can't travel unless they pay.

Before anyone says this is right, db staff were given info stating they would be able to travel on all routes including those taken over from db.

Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

Comments